Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommuter Rail Committee-Agenda Packets-10/27/2008Lity ot, ------._ -' __ --_ _ Texas PUBLIC NOTICE COMMUTER RAIL COMMITTEE Monday, October 27, 2008 6:00 P.M. Colleyville Center, 5301 Riverwalk Drive The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: October 13, 2008 3. Discussion of Environmental Impact Statement 4. Committee Members Recommendations 5. Preparation of Final Report 6. Discussion for Final Meeting -Recommendations to City Council 7. Adjournment 1 certify that Phis notice was posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board on Thursday, October 23, 2008, by 5:00 pm. Joyceinne Williams Office Assistant r;t ~~ c~/ ~~ - -1~ i~. ~~1~ ~ ~~ f ~_<~ X ~5 COMMUTER RAIL COMMITTEE Minutes -October 13, 2008 1. Call to Order Chairman John Gooding called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: John Gooding, Fred Mills, Paul Vigiletti, Linda Baker, Joyce Hammill, John Leeper, Urmesh Shah, John Paul Burnett, Clif Davis Absent: Kristen O'Regan, Roger Nelson, Rich Hendler, Mike Muhm, James Day, Keath Hance, Bart Butler, David Grimes Staff: Mike Johnston, Joyceinne Williams 2. Approval of Minutes: September 25, 2008 Paul Vigiletti made a motion to approve the September 25, 2008 minutes. Clif Davis seconded the motion, the motion carried. 3. Presentation Fred Mills, Co Chair, presented to the Committee a concise version of the slide presentation that was presented at the September 25, 2008 meeting by North Central Texas Council of Governments. The presentation was for consideration to be used as a model presentation to the City Council and other organizations. 4. Committee Discussion There was extensive discussion, by the committed, regarding what information was really needed to be presented, proposed site plan needed updating, how much parking needed, type of sound barriers, and how much area would be left for economic development. Mike Johnston advised the Committee to refer back to what the committee's goal was and questioned how much additional information could/should be gathered to submit their final recommendation to the City Council. Linda Baker expressed concern regarding the necessity of conducting public polls since a lack of new information was not available to be presented. A motion was made by Linda Baker not to go out and do any additional public polls. The motion was seconded by Clif Davis, the motion was carried. 5. Committee Next Steps The Committee agreed that their next steps would include a special meeting to be held October 27, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting would be preparation of a final report and recommendations to the City Council. Each Committee member is encouraged to review all information that has been presented and list all pros and cons regarding the rail system and should incorporate all citizen feedback previously discussed, along with their own opinions. Each Committee member will have three minutes to voice their points. All points would be gathered and summarized. The committee will meet again on November 10, 2008, to review and approve the presentation and recommendations to the City Council, which will then conclude the committee's work. 6. Citizen Comment No citizen comments were made. 7. Adjournment A motion was made by John Gooding to adjourn the meeting and seconded by Linda Baker. The motion was approved and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared 6y Joyceinne Williams Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor l5 Ta61e ES-6: Locally Preferred Alternative Fulfillment of Purpose and Need Statement .. _. Provide multimodal 'The Locally Prefer"red Alternative provides affixed-guideway passenger rdil solutions for mobility in the systenicombined with, significant improvements to local and feeder bus service corridor that help mitigate to, provide a multimodal transportation network to assist with mobility in congestion and improve air 2030, when. regional roadways are forecast to be congested. The Preferred quality. Alternative also provides reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and corresponding reductions in greenhouse gases, and it encourages compact growth through ahe provision of infrastructure that is supportive of transt- o~iented developmenf ~TODj. t Provide a""transportatron;. ~ ~T<e.,aoca:fy P'e~erre, A~Itern~tve interacts wsth other maloi existing,and t- y ~~~ ir'~°;~`~ . ~ ~~ '~-~.` ~r`-~ 'mks solution t at ,enacts; ~ Q~p.af~''ne tra,spoGtationsysterns and facilites~~n~tlieAregion; rncl'uding t 3;n ity Sustained'~~esidential The'Localfy Preferred Alternative provides increased capacity'and improved growth within the Corridor multimodal mobility options to congested roadways. It provides transit service boundaries has resulted in to 14,060 new riders region-wide,"compared with 9,830 fog the Baseline/ - ~_ increasing travel demands ,-': TSM Alternative. along the`~majo~.'roadwdys.` ~ .. ~__ `ESk { 1,3.,4 .,. ., Continued employinerit The Locally Preferred Alternative provides a`relidble travel-time mobility.option growth within the Corridor between' oriel cimongmajor employment centers and other activity centers is attracting increasing throughout the corridor.' levels of intro-coi-ridor journey-to-work trips. ~- fine ~.orr4aor iie~,w~rn~n a - one ~ocai4y°°€~r ter ~Hrt n atrveryprovdes~':eductions~~n~vet7ic~e mires tr vetedti Non attainment area. jVMTj and correspon mg red~ctionsln most gree~in ~ouse gases, an rt.:'' encourva~ges coin act growth"throughthe provision~of infrastructure that is supportive o~ trans~tonented development_jTOD~ Access to DFW Airport The Locally Preferred Alternative provides a.reliable travel-time mobility optjon and major activity centers to and from DFW Airport and its direct and indirect employment. beyond The T's service area is limited due to lack of -~ transit service. SOURCE: URS CORPORATION, 2008. PURPOSE & NEED* 30 ,~ Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). It is estimated that the Commuter Rail Alternative would reduce VMT in the corridor by about 128,550 vehicle miles daily compared to the No-Build Alternative, and by about 138,000 daily VMT compared to the Baseline/TSM OW DOES THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE MEET THE PROJECT'S PURPOSE AND NEED? Alternative. HOW Wlll THE COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM AFFECT LOCAL TRAFFIC? The Commuter Rail Alternative and the Baseline/ The Purpose and Need statement (described earlier) was used to guide the development of alternatives and to define the evaluation criteria for comparing and selecting alternatives during the earlier Alternatives Analysis portion of this project TSM Alternative would both result in less peak- (completed in 2006). The alternative that best met period roadway congestion in the corridor than the Purpose and Need, as well as the supporting in the No-Build Alternative. However, under goals and objectives, was the Commuter Rail the Commuter Rail Alternative, some localized Alternative and was selected as the preliminary areas may experience limited increases in traffic congestion due to the introduction of crossing gates at Commuter Rail grade crossings: In addition, new Commuter Rail stations, and. the traffic they would attract, could have some limited impact on traffic operations near those stations. WILL THE COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM REQUIRE NEW GRADE SEPARATIONS AT LOCAL STREETS? Locally Preferred Alternative to meet 2030 travel demand in the project's study area. The preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative has been supported by The T's Board of Directors, the public, and other stakeholders, and has not changed during the DEIS process. Therefore, the results of this DEIS reinforce that selection of the Commuter Rail Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative. The Commuter Rail Alternative introduces a new Commuter Rail guideway that would cross 61 roadways at-grade in the corridor. An extensive grade crossing analysis concluded no new grade- separations would be needed for crossings and nearby intersections to operate satisfactorily, though additional signalization maybe needed in some areas. Transportation impacts are defined in greater detail in Chapter 5 of the DEIS. Table ES-6 on the following page summarizes the Locally Preferred Alternative's fulfillment of the Purpose and Need Statement. 29* PURPOSE & NEED P t 9. HAT TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED? WHAT KIND OF SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED AND HOW MANY RIDERS WILL THE SYSTEM CARRY? While the bus system would evolve to better accommodate future travel demand patterns in both. $_-. the No-Build and Baseline/TSM Alternatives, buses would still operate under unpredictable, mixed traffic conditions on area roadways and highways. The proposed Southwest-to-Northeast Commuter Rail Alternative would provide an exclusive guideway that would provide increased reliability ~~ and the potential for travel time savin s. When g L connected to the existing THE system, with its connections to DART and eventually the DCTA rail system, the proposed Commuter Rail Alternative would also provide increased transit mobility to origins and destinations throughout the The T's Service Area. The region's. transit network would experience increased ridership; increased passenger miles, and increased passenger hours with the Commuter Rail Alternative compared to the No- Build and Baseline/TSM Alternatives. These levels of service measures are commonly used to assess transit system performance. percent over the Baseline/TSM Alternative). Total region-wide transit passenger miles are estimated to increase from 2.86 million in the No-Build Alternative to 3.11 million in the Commuter Rail Alternative (an increase of about 8 percent over the No-Build Alternative and an increase of 3.4 percent over the Baseline/TSM Alternative). Similarly, total system-wide transit passenger hours would increase about 6 percent in the Commuter Rail Alternative over the No-Build Alternative. HOW LONG Wlll IT TAKE TO TRAVEL ON THE SYSTEM? Travel times on the entire Commuter Rail Alternative end-to-end (from Sycamore School Road to DFW Terminal AB) are forecast to be 70.8 minutes in 2030, compared with approximately 90 minutes for single-occupant autos, and 99 to 115 minutes for buses in the Baseline/TSM Alternative (depending on the direction of travel in the peak period). Compared to the Baseline/TSM alternative, the Commuter Rail Alternative would save 9 to 14 minutes for transit riders from the ITC to the Sycamore School Road Station, and 19 to 30 minutes from the ITC to the DFWRirport-Terminal A/B Station. In addition, the savings would be even greater on days when the buses experience additional congestion due to construction, weather, or incidents on the highway. The Southwest-to-Northeast Commuter Rail i. Alternative is forecast to have a 2030 weekday ridership of about 15,500 riders per day, and total region-wide transit usage would increase by about 14,000 trips daily (an increase of 5.2 percent over the No-Build Alternative and an increase of 1.5 HOW WILL THE COMMUTER RAII SYSTEM AFFECT REGIONAL TRAFFIC AND AIR AUALITY? The Commuter Rail Alternative is anticipated to have beneficial impacts to the regional transportation system by helping to reduce regional ENVIRONMENTAL DATA*28 Table ES-5: Summary of Comm uter Rail Alternative Environmenta l Impacts • •. •. • Utilities Aerial and Minimai .relocations anticipated. To be determined in Underground Utility final design with`and Lines in`conformdnce with requirements of Nye appropriate owning/ operating utility company and ,,, ju'r-sdiction. ; Envrron~me~l `~~ w income r~~ ~''. ~7. % of p opul"af on s are w~ 'i ~ o ~ e u`r Justice ~ 1 ino :itX Po ~ u ations ~ w ~ rri `e~o~f's t~ s~, resin rng in ~irn ~rov ,~ ~, -'_$~ ~ ,t ~ ~ :r ronal~access: o ~' o a:ro :groin-s- ;~~ ~i 3 ~ 4' fit; ~ i }~ ~..: ~ ou d'e `Pe 'erne dispro rt':ona e k .~ ~f. ~ fi`x` *: ~ ~ ~ .. .~,~ ig , er.a er ~ - - ~ e~ts~re a ~;ve~t ~~ ~ = e p. opu Ca,,S~g rou , s _ Construction Construction Minimal impacts to environmental Applying water to disturbed Impacts resources. Resources typically impacted soil, reyegetating'disturbed include air quality; .noise and vibration, areas, covering and utilities, water resources and traffic. maintaining trucks. Air Quality Impacts would occur From fugitive dust {mplement dust control From earthmovrng, ground disturbance, measures: etc.~and emissions froni'constructron equipment. Noise and Vibration Generation of noise From construction Avoid nighttime construction equipment Minimal vibration impacts in'resrdentral areas, use of expected #rom pile driving. mufflers or enclosed engines,. and constrict temporary noise ba~~iers. Utility Disruptions ` Short term impacts to area utilities due to Plan and schedule line disruptions, relocations and general construction activities to improvements. niinrmize~utility service- interruptions and provide nofifrcations"of disruptions. Water Resources Temporary removal of vegetation, Implement of Stormwater,~ increased stormwater runoff, aril Pollution Prevention Pldn ;- . ' increased 'sedimentation: and adhere to appropriato permitting prog`rarims." Traffic Disruptions Traffic and circulation impacts, due to : _. _ Coordinate with appropriate ; . roadway cbsures. traffic control division's"to maintain reasonable and safe ;, traffic bperatrons at affected crossings. Develop temporary ,, traffic control pldn, schedule equipment movement during non- k periods, etc. 27* ENVIRONMENTAL DATA i ~: HAT TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA WERE COLLECTED & ANALYZED IN THE CORRIDOR? Qualified professionals in their field have identified the existing natural and built environmental conditions in the Study Area. For purposes of . this environmental evaluation, the Southwest- to-Northeast Corridor study area generally encompasses ahalf--mile on either side of the alignment unless otherwise noted, and extends from Sycamore School Road in southwest Tarrant County to the north end of DFW Airport. The environmental resources and issues identified include: Land Use and Zoning; Economic Considerations; Acquisitions and Displacements; Social Characteristics and Community Facilities; Historic and Archeological Resources; Parkland; Public Safety and Security; Visual and Aesthetic Resources; Air Quality; Noise and Vibration; Biological and Natural Resources; Water Resources and Water Quality; Mineral Resources, Geology, and Soils; Hazardous Materials; Utilities; and Transportation. Detailed information regarding the affected environment in the project Study Area is provided in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. In terms of air quality, the proposed Southwest-to- Northeast Rail Corridor is consistent with Mobility 2030, the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and the 2006-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), both of which were found to conform by FHWA and FTA on June 12, 2007. WHAT ARE THE ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT? Potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts associated with the Commuter Rail Alternative are summarized in Table ES-5 on the following pages. (Note: environmental impacts of the two design options are similar in nature to that of the Commuter Rail Alternative and are not listed here.) Specific mitigation measures in response to anticipated impacts are also identified. Chapter 4 of the DEIS provides a detailed comparison of the No-Build, Baseline/TSM and Commuter Rail Alternative (and design option) impacts. 23* ENVIRONMENTAL DATA f.. i cost effectively, than if all trains were required to start from one end of a corridor or off line at Irving Yard. For the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor project, a layover facility is proposed near Dirks Road at the southwest end of the corridor between the mainline of the FWWR tracks and the future Southwest Parkway alignment shown in the figure below. In addition, a layover facility is proposed for the north end of the project immediately north of the proposed DFW Airport-North Station. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED*22 WHAT ABOUT A LAYOVER FACILITY FOR THE PROJECT? Heavy maintenance for the proposed Commuter Rail Alternative would be conducted at the existing THE Irving Yard. The facility would provide supporting infrastructure for train operations and would be used to inspect, repair, maintain, clean, and store commuter rail vehicles. A maintenance facility also typically includes vehicle storage, a maintenance shop(s), employee offices, locker rooms, train operation reporting and dispatching rooms, and parking, all of which are already housed at the THE Irving Yard. Some modification may be needed to accommodate the number of vehicles that are proposed for the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor, and this is included in the total capital cost for the project; it is assumed that most maintenance could be accomodated at this facility by adding workers on additional shifts. A layover facility is a much smaller facility that usually is located on the opposite end or ends of the corridor relative to the maintenance facility. In this case, because the maintenance facility is located in Irving, a layover facility could be located at either the southwest or northeast end of the corridor, though it is likely that, regardless of the location of a layover facility, there will be storage tracks at both ends of the corridor to store one or two trains. A layover facility would be used for the mid-day and overnight storage of trains and could be used for light cleaning, daily train servicing, and minor inspection and repair. Some trains would be stored at the maintenance facility and some would be stored at the layover facility to allow trains to begin or end the service day from each end of the corridor. This would allow equal service to be operated in both directions much sooner each day, and more 21 * ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED F , f z ~`. = All station concepts shown are preliminary concepts and subject to change based on additional planning and design analysis and public review and comment. ~i ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED*20 ~~ ~_. All station concepts shown are preliminary concepts and subject to change based on additional planning and design analysis and public review and comment. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED* 18 ~._.. All station concepts shown are preliminary concepts and subject to change based on additional planning and design analysis and public review and comment. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED* 16 All station concepts shown are preliminary conceph and subject to change based on additional planning and design analysis and public review and comment. 15* ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ~_ _' All station concepts shown are preliminary concepts and subject to change based on additional planning and design analysis and public review and comment. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED* 14 its publication, with the likelihood that the impacts described in this document will be less substantial on opening day than those forecast for 2030. WHERE Wlll THE COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS BE LOCATED? The project team worked with The T, local jurisdiction representatives, residents, local businesses and property owners in the corridor to ensure that proposed stations fit comfortably into the surroundings and that both the ridership associated with stations and adjacent areas benefit from increased access. Table ES- 4 describes the general location and other characteristics of the proposed stations for the Commuter Rail Alternative, and station concepts are shown on the following pages. Note these descriptions are based on station characteristics forecast for full system build-out in 2030. These station characteristics are also conceptual and subject to change based on additional analysis. Table ES-4: Commuter Roil Station Characteristics (2030) • • Sv amore, =ham ~,~Road :~' ~ ~~' ~ "Bus Bps 604; -20/Granbury 4 Bus Bays 450 ~aY-..~ _ T U/BAY ~``~~`~'~ .~~ ', ~ 3~~Bus`~ ~~ ~~~` ~ 350' Medical Center Omstreet Bus Drop-Off 400 ~ Ty~ Terminal (~M~ti,~ng ~ ~~ ~ r ^~{ry3;j~~ fir- ~,..anwBP'- ~C sm~Y.4 _ Exlstmg-Bus Facl' the ~~35 ~:. ITC (Exlsfing) Existing Bus Faalihes .. Non. e ,. , N~~orthSid&~e~Comm~ ut eRa l Alte~rna~ve'Op ~A ~ ~S Bus B s _ . 52ro _ ^ , , ay North Side Commuter Rdil Alternative Option~B 6^Bus Bays 425 ~ • Bea h,~~Strt ~~ Y 4 Bus Bas ~ ~32'S Haltom City-US 377 4 Bus Bay's 550; -, , orth Ric and N H'ills'Ir ono se ~Y ` ~' '~ ~~ . _ _ ~ _ _ , ^ • North Richland Hills-Smithfield Bus Loading Area =_ ,.. ; 70Q ~_ ~•° aln~ " `'t'` ~,°~`tr~~r~ Coley 1~~• ohn'M „8~ B us Ba s b ~, , rte, , y _ e~. _.- Grapevme=lvlain`Street 3 Bus Bays `: U5. ' ..~. DFW~"1~o~~1,~,,~ ,~ ~ ~'^' _4.. ~fi~`g 3~usa ,s , - _ DFW Ai ort-Terminal A/B N/AY4J ~ None •• ~ •• • ,, _ w 7th'~Street e `~ ,: *~" ~`~ Bu ~ rm ;~ F ,~~.°~ North Main Street Option A 3 Bus Bays ' '~ „ _,. - 350 ~ ~ ' ;` , N rth~arn Street Option B ,r ' 2 Bus Bay's ~ fi ~ :' X50 ~ -a ~. ~ Nosh Side Western B ss 5 Bus B s 525 •• • North Si e Choctaw 'd ~3 Bus"Bays ~""'' ~"`~~"~ 500 -- Beach Street Choctaw 3 $us Bays 550 SOURCE: URS CORPORATION, 2008. 13*ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ~' t ~' HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN EACH OF THE ALTERNATIVES? Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for all bus components have been developed using the operating cost information for The T's existing fixed route service in year 2008 dollars. O&M costs for Commuter Rail components were developed using data from other systems around the country, including the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) service operated jointly by the T and DART. O&M costs shown are for the fu112030 buildout; opening day costs are expected to be lower. Table ES-3 summarizes annual O&M costs for the alternatives. All costs are listed in 2008 dollars and are preliminary in nature based on the level of design as of the publication of this DEIS and are subject to change as design and analysis proceed in the future. Table ES-3: 2030 Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Comparison (in $ millions) Commuter Rail rystem ^ lindldng stot'ansl 90 ^ F«dar bus ~~ 581.3 $81.1 $80.8 ~-= ao _. _ 70 } 60 so e 40 30 so io ° `m , ~~ ~ ~° o ~ . ~~ 0~C m o \C 0~C ~ o J 0~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ F ~ ~ V~ yy ~~~Qo C O ~~. ~ ..`~ 3 ,o oc OQ .~ ~y ALL COSTS IN 2008 DOLLARS. SOURCE: URS CORPORATION; CONNETICS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., 2008. HOW Wlll THE SYSTEM BE FUNDED AND IMPLEMENTED? The Commuter Rail Alternative proposed in this document will be funded through a combination of funding sources, including existing sales taxes collected by The T and the City of Grapevine, grant funds or other proceeds from NCTCOG and Tarrant County, federal "New. Starts" funding, and other local funding sources. This DEIS is focused on evaluating the environmental issues associated with the full build-out of the Southwest- to-Northeast Commuter Rail corridor that extends from Sycamore School Road in southwest Fort Worth through downtown Fort Worth, to the north entrance of the DFW Airport as envisioned for the year 2030. That horizon year is used because it is the current horizon year for the projects included in the NCTCOG Long Range Transportation Plan. NCTCOG demographic and travel forecasting information is used as inputs into the evaluation process for this project. However, The T is targeting an opening day for the Southwest-to- Northeast Commuter Rail by 2013. Therefore, the Southwest-to-Northeast Commuter Rail project that initially is opened by 2013 may vary in its complexity, operating plan, costs, and facility ROW requirements compared with the ultimate 2030 build-out plan evaluated in this DEIS. The exact segmentation, phasing, and staging of this system depends on funding availability and other factors still to be examined and determined. The evaluation conducted in this DEIS represents the "maximum" case for the Southwest-to-Northeast Commuter Rail project, as it is known at the time of ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED* 1Z WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED OPERATING HOURS AND FREAUENCIES OF THE COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE? The 2030 operating plan assumes that the operating days and hours for the Commuter Rail Alternative are seven days per week, 365 days per year, 17 hours per day. Table ES-1 shows the proposed 2030 operating schedule for both weekday and weekend/ holiday service. HOW MUCH WOULD THE ALTERNATIVES COST? Capital cost estimates reflect basic engineering and understanding of the principal structural and system elements of the Baseline/TSM and Commuter. Rail Alternatives. Table ES-2 summarizes capital costs of the alternatives. The costs shown for the Commuter Rail Alternative are for full build-out in 2030; initial start-up costs are expected to be lower. All costs are listed in 2008 dollars and are preliminary in nature based on the level of design as of the publication of this DEIS and are subject to change as design and analysis proceed in the future. Table ES-2: 2030 Capital Cost Comparisons Table (in $ millions] Commuter Roil system 600 ^ (inducting stations) ^ Park•and-ride: ^ Feeaer ~S S531.3 S520.3 5502.3 500 400 ~ r .~ 300 ~, t `' •~.,~:~ , SOURCE: URS CORPORATION, 2008. Service hours could be extended later into the evening or early morning hours for special events. The service level days, hours and headways maybe different for the initial year of operations depending upon ridership demand. - -- S'l.~;l.~~l - ---- ~ .r. ~ ~ - -- ----~ --_ r~-- Q T I I I i a :m ° ~ ~ ~ ``m ~°im ~ ° ° y o`\oc p 3 ,A oc o ~c 2 .~ ~ ~c ~ ic ~ 0 ~ Q ~ ~ .~ pQ ~1 ~ ~ O ~ O y ~J ~ y`~ ~ ~ ~ ,y ~ v ALL COSTS IN 2008 DOLLARS. SOURCE: URS CORPORATION; CONNETICS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., 2008. 1 1 * ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Table ES-1: Commuter Rail Alternative Service Levels r- i DFW Airport-North Station, which will provide across- latform transfer to the futwe DART p alignment proposed to extend eastward on the ° CottonBelt to Carrollton. From the DFWAirport- North Station, the rail line would then cross over the John W. Carpenter Freeway (SH-114/SH-121) on an elevated structure and tie into the International Parkway ROW south of the northern toll plaza and terminate at the DFW Airport-Terminal A/B Station At that point, across-platform connection would be provided to the planned DART light rail line ~. ~ from Irving. WHAT PASSENGER VEHICLES ARE PROPOSED fOR THE COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE? + The Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor will operate on tracks that are shared with freight for -`' nearly the entire route. There are three methods in F which railroad corridors maybe shared between ({ passenger rail and freight rail operations. * Passenger rail vehicles may share the same track with freight trains by providing a time separation (such as operating freight trains at night or during off-peak hours). * Passenger rail vehicles may share freight tracks and operate in a coordinated schedule if they are built to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) mandated structural requirements for rolling stock, known as FRA-compliant vehicles. This is the most likely scenario for the Southwest-to- Northeast Rail Corridor project. Diesel multiple unit (DMLJ) technology is the likely vehicle choice for this alternative and is used for modeling. purposes in this report; however, no specific vehicle or manufacturer has been specified at the time of the DEIS. Vehicle technologies and manufacturers will continue to be evaluated throughout the course of this project. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED* 10 ~k Passenger rail vehicles may use existing railroad before entering DFW Airport property east of Texan corridors, but operate on tracks completely Trail/SH-114 Business, where it would diverge from physically separated from freight tracks. the existing Cotton Belt alignment and stop at the WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT OF THE COMMUTER RAII ALTERNATIVE? The Commuter Rail Alternative would generally be an at-grade, single-tracked line. From the southwest, the line would begin at the Sycamore School Road Station in southwest Fort Worth. It would continue northeast, sharing the existing freight track with existing FWWR freight traffic, with track that would be upgraded to the Medical District Station. North of the Medical District Station, the alignment would transition eastward onto the UP mainline on the northernmost track to access the existing T&P Terminal and Fort Worth ITC Station. The alignment would continue north at Purina Junction on what is known as the Duncan Subdivision to Tower 60 located just east of the Fort Worth Stockyards. At Tower 60, the alignment would transition onto the DART owned Cotton Belt alignment to the Beach Two alignment options around the downtown area are also being considered through the DEIS process as design options or future connections. The Western Bypass Design Option would continue to use the FWWR alignment north of the Medical District Station, serving the area west of downtown on what is known as the Western Bypass alignment, reconnecting with the main alignment at Tower 60 north of downtown in the stockyards area. The Choctaw Design Option would transition onto the UP Choctaw Subdivision north of Purina Junction and reconnect with the main alignment east of the Beach Street station at what is known as Choctaw Crossing at the intersection of Old Denton Road and Meacham Boulevard. After the Beach Street Station, the rail line would then travel through eastern Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine on the DART-owned Cotton Belt railroad alignment 9*ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ~~ F. ,r i north of downtown.. After serving apark-and-ride at the Stockyards, buses would travel east on 28th Street over I-35W, to Belknap/SH-183 to Grapevine Highway/SH-26. Buses would travel along SH-26 serving park-and-rides in Haltom City (at Haltom Road), North Richland Hills (at SH-26 and Rufe Snow Drive and SH-26 and Walker Boulevard/ Cardinal Lane), and Colleyville (at John McCain) before serving apark-and-ride in downtown Grapevine, apark=and-ride at DFW Airport-North, ~~ and the DFW Airport-Terminal AB Stations. ., A network of local and feeder buses would provide su ortive e is t th tr pp s rv e o e cen al element of the t~ $: Baseline/TSM Alternative similar to the existing bus network, with some route modifications and additions to better serve the study area. This feeder bus network would consist of the nineteen routes as described under the No-Build Alternative with some route modifications to serve park-and-rides. Additionally, seventeen feeder routes would also be introduced to provide connectivity to municipalities in the outlying areas, specifically Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine. \, A /HAT IS THE COMMUTER RAIL V v ALTERNATIVE? The Commuter Rail Alternative would operate on portions of the FWWR, UP, and the DART owned Cotton Belt railroad lines from southwest Fort Worth at approximately Sycamore School Road, through Downtown Fort Worth, and continuing through Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFW Airport. The entire alignment, as proposed, is approximately 37 miles in length. Fifteen stations are proposed on the alignment: Sycamore School Road, I-20/Granbury Road, TCUBerry, Medical District, T&P Terminal (existing), ITC (existing), North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City-US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFW Airport-North, and DFW Airport-Terminal AB. The station planning process-and station locations for this project are described in detail further in this section. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED * 8 conducted between 2005 and 2006 and approved to carry forward into the EIS process by The T's Board of Directors in November 2006. WHAT IS THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE? The No-Build Alternative was developed to assess the impacts and the benefits if nothing more is done beyond what is currently provided or programmed in the NCTCOG Regional Long Range Transportation Plan. The No-Build Alternative would also include existing and committed roadway and transit projects in the study area and is a way to compare the travel benefits for the Baseline/TSM and the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative focuses on a combination of existing rail and bus routes to provide service between maj or activity centers, the largest of which are downtown Fort Worth and DFW Airport. Under the No-Build Alternative, travel from Downtown Fort Worth to DFW Airport requires the use of the THE Rail Line from either the T&P Terminal or the ITC in Downtown to the CentrePort/DFW Airport Station. At the CentrePort Station, travelers must transfer to DFW Airport via the Remote South Shuttle Bus. Shuttle buses depart the station every 15 minutes. At the Remote South lot, passengers connect to buses serving either Terminals A and C, Terminals B and E, or Terminal D. The No-Build Alternative assumes the background roadway, thoroughfare, and transit network included in the financially constrained regional long-range plan developed by NCTCOG (Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas- Fort Worth Area). Those projects include the DCTA Commuter Rail line between North Carrollton and Denton, the DART Northwest/Southeast Corridor light rail line to Frankford Road in North Carrollton, and the East Cotton Belt Corridor from Plano to DFW Airport through North Carrollton. These rail lines are planned and would be constructed by the year 2030. WHAT IS THE BASELINE/TSM ALTERNATIVE? The Baseline/Transportation Systems Management (TSM} Alternative is designed primarily to provide a relatively low-cost alternative to the Commuter Rail Alternative. To fulfill the requirements of the FTA New Starts criteria, aBaseline/TSM Alternative was prepared to represent "the best that can be done" without implementing a major capital investment, such as rail transit, in the study corridor. This alternative is often described as the "best bus" alternative. It is included for financial and mobility comparisons. Express bus service is proposed to serve the major activity centers within the corridor. This service would begin in southwest Fort Worth at Sycamore School Road and use Granbury Road, serving park- and-rides at Sycamore School Road, I-20/Granbury, and TCUBerry. As Granbury transitions into 8th Avenue, buses would serve apark-and-ride at the '~ Medical Center before heading east on Pennsylvania Avenue to Main Street. Buses would serve the T&P ~. Terminal and ITC in downtown Fort Worth before heading to the Historic Stockyards via the Jones/ Calhoun couplet downtown and North Main Street 7* ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED would affect schedule adherence for the bus route single-occupant auto more than 90 minutes to make that same trip in the year 2030. Currently, transit access to DFW Airport from the Fort Worth CBD involves a minimum of two transfers via the existing commuter rail line and two buses. Travel time on _. this service is not convenient. For example, under current THE and DFW Airport shuttle schedules, it takes 72 minutes at best (and 84 minutes at worst depending on transfers and schedule reliability) for a passenger to travel from the T&P Terminal to DFW Airport Terminal A using the THE/shuttle system involving a bus transfer at the THE CentrePort station and another transfer at the DFW South Remote shuttle lot. Even if direct bus service to DFW Airport were to be initiated from the CBD, no advantage in travel time over the automobile would be realized using the existing roadways. The primary route for fixed-route bus service would be SH-121 and SH-183, which are currently experiencing LOS E and F, respectively, during peak hours, and are projected to maintain that same level of service in the future even with additional general purpose and managed lanes. Traffic congestion resulting in inconsistent or unreliable transit service to DFW Airport and other activity centers in the Study Area, including Hulen Mall, TCU, the Fort Worth Medical District, downtown Fort Worth, the Fort Worth Stockyards, and downtown Grapevine. An NCTCOG-led study entitled Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Rail Planning and Implementation Study was completed in 2003 with the goal to provide a seamless, customer sensitive, affordable, and achievable surface transportation access plan for DFW Airport. The basis of this study was to improve the access via public transportation modes to the airport, which is recognized as the top employer and a major activity center for mobility and trip generation in Tarrant County. The resulting recommendation for this effort included a commuter rail alignment in what is now the Southwest-to- Northeast Rail Corridor Study Area to provide transit access to DFW Airport from Tarrant County. This rail corridor is also in NCTCOG's most recent long-range plan (the Metropolitan Transportation Plan or MTP). HAT ALTERNATIVES WERE CONSIDERED IN THIS DEIS? Three alternatives are being considered in this EIS: a No-Build Alternative, aBaseline/Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative and a Commuter Rail Alternative. There are also two design options that are being considered, the Western Bypass Design Option and the Choctaw Design Option. These alternatives were derived from The T's Southwest-to-Northeast Transportation Corridor Study, which was an Alternatives Analysis ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED*6 service shows that, even with significant expansions of the Study Area's freeway system, it will take a and constructed, the mobility needs of the area will not be met. It is clear that we cannot simply pave our way out of congestion; as soon as we add new capacity to the roadway system, it's quickly absorbed by latent demand." Continued employment growth within the Corridor is attracting increasing levels of intra-corridor journey-to-work trips. The entire Corridor contains fast-growing and widespread employment centers throughout the Study Area resulting in many complex travel patterns. According to NCTCOG 2005 trip table data, intra- corridor journey-to-work trips are strongly diverse within the corridor. Although the Fort Worth Central Business District (downtown) has the most dense employment base of any within the Study Area, most of the activity centers in the corridor are projected to have comparable or greater numbers of commuter/work trips. For example, the far east/ northeast area around DFW Airport has an almost equal number of people (nearly 50,000) leaving the area for jobs and coming into the area for jobs. The Fort Worth cultural district and stockyards areas have more people coming to the. district to work than leaving the district for jobs. This situation is further complicated by pass-through traffic producing demanding constraints on the major roadways in the corridor. The corridor lies within anon-attainment area. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Tarrant County and eight adjoining counties in North Central Texas in non- attainment for the eight-hour ozone standard in accordance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 'The T and NCTCOG have committed to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS as early as possible and contribute to a better quality of life for all North Texans; this project is one means to help achieve that goal. Access to DFW Airport and major activity centers beyond TheT's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Improving access to major employers such as DFW Airport is an important goal of the Region, as mobility and air quality issues demand alternative modes of travel to single occupant vehicles. Current transit access to DFW Airport and other activity centers is limited in scope due to access and travel time constraints. A large portion of this project's Study Area lies outside The T's service area, and residents in those areas currently do not have access to transit. Additionally, travel time is inconsistent and constrained for over- the road transit modes due to congestion along the major roadways between the. Fort Worth CBD and DFW Airport. Current travel time on the freeway system from one end of the corridor to another (a distance of just under 40 miles) is nearly 90 minutes during peak periods. Analysis of future levels of 5* WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED? €,_ . C Sustained residential growth within the Corridor boundaries has resulted in increasing travel demands along major roadways. Due to high levels of migration and natural growth, population within the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor is expected to grow 23 percent between 2005 and 2030, growing from 846,243 to 1,040,786. Employment within the Study Area is projected to grow at a faster pace at 32 percent between 2005 and 2030, increasing from 636,815 to 840,481. The corridor is primarily within Tarrant County, a fast-growing urban county of 1.5 million people located in north central Texas. Fort Worth is the fastest growing city of more than 500,000 per the U.S. Census Bureau based on statistics from July of 2006. The County's population is expected to dramatically increase in the coming decades. Between now and 2030, the County's population is estimated to grow by more than 40 percent. In addition, major activity centers within the study corridor are forecast to see significant population and employment growth between now and 2030. Population growth is forecast to increase in all areas, but to more than double near the proposed Sycamore School Road Station and in the Medical District, .and to increase by approximately 75 percent in Downtown Fort Worth and nearly 60 percent near the proposed Beach Street Station. Employment growth is projected to increase significantly at Sycamore School Road, to more than double near the Beach Street and Colleyville stations; and to grow more than 50 percent near the Haltom City, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, and DFW North stations. Existing and committed roadway improvements have not kept pace with traffic volume increases on the'major roadways in the Study Area, resulting in steadily increasing congestion. Most major roadways within the corridor are experiencing unacceptable levels of service resulting in increased congestion and reductions in air quality. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative rating system for roadways based on operating conditions, with (A) being the best and (F) being the worst. State Highway (SH) 183 and SH-26 are forecast to operate at LOS F in 2030, and the majority of other major roadways are expected to operate at LOS E. The Region's Mobility 2030 Plan calls for improvements to I-35W, I-30, I-20, SH-26, SH-121, SH-183, and Loop 820 as well as the completion of a new toll road project (SH- 121T -also known as Southwest Parkway). The vast majority of roadways in 2030 are projected to experience severe congestion even with all of the proposed improvements in place. According to a 2004 study commissioned by The T and the City of Fort Worth: "Even if the planned roadway improvements [in the Mobility 2025 Plan (which has now been updated to the 2030 Plan)] are funded WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?*4 decisions will be documented in the FEIS, which will also include responses to comments received during circulation of the DEIS. The T will likely be pursuing New Starts (Section 5309) funding for one or more components of this project's ultimate Locally Preferred Alternative. New Starts is the Federal government's primary program for providing financial support to locally planned, implemented and operated fixed-guideway transit capital investments. The New Starts evaluation process is separate from the evaluation required by NEPA, for which this DEIS is being prepared. FTA is the sponsoring agency for this project and is working in concert with the following cooperating and participating agencies: * Cooperating Agencies Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ~k Participating Agencies Texas Historical Commission (THC), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), City of Fort Worth, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Denton County Transit Agency (DCTA), City of Haltom City, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), City of Hurst, TxDOT Multi-Modal Office, Regional Transportation Council (RTC), City of Grapevine, TxDOT -Fort Worth District, DFW International Airport, City of North Richland Hills, North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA), City of Colleyville, City of Southlake The Executive Summary highlights the most significant findings for the DEIS relative to each chapter of the document: ~ Purpose and Need # Alternatives Considered * Affected Environment ~ Environmental Consequences ~ Transportation Impacts * Public and Agency Involvement \, A /HY IS THIS PROJECT NEEDED? V V The purpose of this project is to: * Improve mobility between and among activity centers in the corridor; * Provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the corridor that help mitigate congestion and improve air quality; and * Provide a transportation solution that interacts seamlessly and efficiently with other transportation systems in the region. The challenges within the Study Area include congestion, growth, air quality, and transit access. Those challenges {or needs) include: 3* WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Fort Worth Transportation Azrthority (FWTA, also knotivn as The T), in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Section 4(~ Evaluation for the Southwest- to-Northeast Rail Corridor project. The project consists of transportation improvements along portions of the Foi°t Worth and Western Railroad (FWWR), Union Pack Railroad (UP), and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)-owned Cotton Belt railroad lines.f~om southwest Fort Worth at approximately Sycamore School Road, through Downtown Foi-t Worth, and continuing through Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW Airport). NTRODUCTION - WHAT IS THE T? The Fort Worth Transportation Authority, or The T, operates the public transportation system throughout the City of Fort Worth and in Richland Hills and Blue Mound. This network is comprised of local and express bus service, Mobility Impaired Transportation Service (MITS) for residents who have disabilities, and commuter rail operating between downtown Fort Worth and Dallas. r_, II HAT IS THIS PROJECT? The primary purpose of this EIS is to assist decision-makers and the public in assessing potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor project. The EIS documents the "purpose and need" for the Southwest-to- Northeast project and presents a discussion of the alternatives considered for implementation. It addresses, in detail, the potential social, economic, environmental, and transportation related impacts of each of the alternatives, and describes the recommended mitigation measures to offset the unavoidable impacts. In accordance with federal regulations, full consideration of environmental effects as disclosed during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is required before the Southwest- to-Northeast project can be advanced to final design, right-of--way (ROW) acquisition, equipment and facilities procurement, and system construction. This Draft EIS (DEIS) will determine the environmental effects, while a Final EIS (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) from the FTA will be required for advancement to the subsequent stages noted. This DEIS document will be made available and circulated for review to interested parties, including private citizens, community groups, the business community, elected officials, and public agencies in accordance with federal and state requirements. After consideration of the comments received during circulation of the DEIS and the public hearing, the resolution of any outstanding issues will be made by The T. The result of these 7 * INTRODUCTION